GBCI vs HAFC Stock Comparison
HAFC currently leads GBCI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 50. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between GBCI and HAFC?
HAFC leads the current stock comparison as Hanmi Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Glacier Bancorp, Inc. vs Hanmi Financial Corporation
HAFC leads
HAFC leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors GBCI on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support HAFC, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Glacier Bancorp, Inc.
Hanmi Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HAFC over GBCI, 59 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. HAFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. HAFC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GBCI. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HAFC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. HAFC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Glacier Bancorp, Inc. and Hanmi Financial Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare GBCI and HAFC against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value34 vs 57HAFC +23
- Quality60 vs 64HAFC +4
- Momentum53 vs 54Even
- Risk Resilience60 vs 61Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor HAFC. HAFC’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
HAFC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GBCI and HAFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HAFC (Hanmi Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
GBCI (Glacier Bancorp, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
HAFCHAFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GBCIGBCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HAFCHAFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
GBCIGBCI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors HAFC, analyst targets favor GBCI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GBCI | HAFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.5% | +6.9% | GBCI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +10.5% | +8.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | GBCI | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.27% | 15.74% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.180 | $0.520 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.320 | $1.080 |
| Years increased | 2 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
HAFC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.74% a year against GBCI's 2.27%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HAFC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HAFC | 50 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | GBCIon balance | revenue growth -8.7% vs -45.6%; EPS growth 19% vs 2.6%; TTM ROE 7.6% vs 11.2%; gross margin 73.8% vs 56.4%; operating margin 24.7% vs 17.3% — GBCI takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HAFC | Value 34 vs 57 |
| Technicals | HAFC | Price vs 50-day -1.8% vs -0.1%; vs 200-day -6.6% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | GBCI | Target upside 27.5% vs 6.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GBCI and HAFC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on HAFC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20HAFC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HAFC +9
- 50 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- HAFC +9
- 46 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- HAFC +13
- 44 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- HAFC +13
- 49 vs 62
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GBCI
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.74%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only HAFC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.17%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
GBCI is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.43%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.1%, AIQ +2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1GBCI closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAFC's edge.
- 2GBCI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3HAFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate HAFC's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
GBCI leads on balance| Metric | GBCI | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -8.7% | -45.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 19% | 2.6% |
| Gross margin | 73.8% | 56.4% |
| Operating margin | 24.7% | 17.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.6% | 11.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.51 | 0.16 |
Performance
HAFC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GBCI | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.6% | 1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.8% | -1.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13% | 0.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.3% | 14% |
| Year to date | 1% | 16.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.2% | 37.1% |
Technicals
HAFC has the stronger structure| Metric | GBCI | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.6 | 56.8 |
| ADX (14) | 32.8 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.8% | -0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.6% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.3% | 17.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | GBCI | HAFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | 0.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.03 | 1.04 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.05 | 1.36 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -16.2% |
| Current drawdown | -18.4% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.6% | 29.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GBCI or HAFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HAFC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against GBCI's 50. The edge comes from value and quality. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is GBCI or HAFC the better buy right now?
HAFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HAFC over GBCI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HAFC leads Value by 23 points; HAFC leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GBCI or HAFC?
Analyst price targets imply +27.5% upside for GBCI and +6.9% for HAFC, so the Street currently favors GBCI. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HAFC. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, GBCI or HAFC?
HAFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HAFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, GBCI or HAFC?
GBCI on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, GBCI or HAFC?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, GBCI or HAFC?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is GBCI more profitable than HAFC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.8% vs 56.4%; operating margin 24.7% vs 17.3%; ttm roe 7.6% vs 11.2%. GBCI leads on two measures and HAFC on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is HAFC's lead over GBCI getting stronger or weaker?
HAFC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the GBCI vs HAFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GBCI closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAFC's edge; GBCI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; HAFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate HAFC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about GBCI and HAFC?
GBCI: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. HAFC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on GBCI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On HAFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GBCI and HAFC with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.